Where are the config maintainers? Karl Barry and company?
(I don't remember his e-mail nor do I have it at hand.)
I would expect them to be actively reading this list, but instead my
original request has been left twisting in the wind.
Zack Weinberg wrote:
I haven't been following this long discussion very closely but I do have some opinions
(with my "de facto autoconf maintainer" hat on):
1. As a general rule, it is not safe to change the canonicalization (i.e. the config.sub
output) of an existing system name, *at all*; in
I'd note that I don't see "rethinking target tuples" as changing how any
given name is assigned, but rather changing how they are defined and how
they are thought about.
We wouldn't break anything by changing the fourth field to mean
"Environment" rather than "Operating System", to be more well-de
"Zack Weinberg" writes:
> I haven't been following this long discussion very closely but I do
> have some opinions (with my "de facto autoconf maintainer" hat on):
>
> 1. As a general rule, it is not safe to change the canonicalization
> (i.e. the config.sub output) of an existing system name, *a
I haven't been following this long discussion very closely but I do have some
opinions (with my "de facto autoconf maintainer" hat on):
1. As a general rule, it is not safe to change the canonicalization (i.e. the
config.sub output) of an existing system name, *at all*; in many cases, not
even
